Why 'stand your ground' law doesn't apply to Zimmerman

David Simmons, Guest columnist

After the tragic death of Trayvon Martin in a fight with George Zimmerman last year in Sanford, many people took to the streets and airwaves, claiming that his death somehow resulted from Florida's "stand your ground" law.

They claimed, erroneously, that Florida's "stand your ground" law protected lawless criminals. Unfortunately, these people did not properly understand this law, its application or its purpose.

Nearly a year and a half later, Zimmerman is being prosecuted and the case has gone to trial before a jury. Much to the amazement of those who had claimed that this case was a "stand your ground" case, Zimmerman's attorneys this spring stated publicly that the case is not.

But I still hear news media today talking about the Zimmerman case and referring to it as a "stand your ground" case. Let me explain why it is not.

I was the chairman of the Florida House of Representatives' Judiciary Committee in 2005, when Rep. Dennis Baxley asked me to assist him in passing a law permitting innocent victims of crimes, in defending themselves against a criminal's use of deadly force, to have the option of either fleeing or standing their ground against the criminal.

At that time, Florida was in the minority of states that claimed to use the so-called enlightened approach that required innocent victims, when not in their homes, to flee when deadly force was used against them by a criminal, unless the victim had no place to flee.

Florida's duty to flee law, however, had been rejected by most states in America and even the U.S. Supreme Court.

For almost a century, most other states have followed the view that it is unreasonable to second-guess a victim of a crime as to whether that victim, in attempting to defend himself, should try to either disarm the criminal or flee from the criminal.

As the U.S. Supreme Court stated in 1921, it is not the place of the courts to second-guess a victim who is confronted with a knife to his or her neck and demand that the victim flee rather than try to disarm the criminal.

Florida's duty to flee law, thus, was anti-woman and elevated the life of the criminal above the value of the life of the innocent victim. It was time to align Florida with the majority of other states — states that have had "stand your ground" laws for a century and were not experiencing a wild West scenario, like some people claimed would happen if Florida adopted such a law.

As the main drafter of Florida's "stand your ground" law, I put language in the bill that states an innocent victim who is (a) not engaged in an unlawful activity, (b) is where he or she has a lawful right to be, (c) does not provoke the use of force, and (d) acts reasonably in the use of deadly force in defending himself or herself, may stand his or her ground rather than flee.

The bill included an immunity to those defendants who claim self-defense if they can prove to a judge by a preponderance of evidence they are innocent, but it is erroneously called, in an over-generalizion, as a stand your ground hearing.

The bill passed overwhelmingly in the House and the Senate, with bipartisan support. More than 23 other states have enacted this common-sense legislation.

Properly understood, "stand your ground" is simply a small but important element of the broader concept of self-defense. Some self-defense cases may involve a question of whether a defendant could have fled or stood his ground, and in other cases it is not an issue.

In the Zimmerman case, it apparently would not have made a difference because he says he was pinned to the ground and could not flee.

As such, even under Florida's pre-"stand your ground" law, there was no duty to flee if there was no ability to flee. So, this is not a case questioning whether Zimmerman had the duty to flee or could have stood his ground against Martin.

As such, this is not a "stand your ground" case.

David Simmons is a Florida state senator who lives in Altamonte Springs.